or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New skis and knee pain - Page 2

post #31 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by moreoutdoor View Post

4mm in lever length would be very hard to actually feel a difference - 15 mm may be perceivable...

 

I would beg to differ here.

 

It (4mm) sounds small but,

 

Take out several skis in the same "line"

 

Head Supershapes for instance.

 

I-Speed, 68mm under foot

I-magnum 72mm under foot

I-Rally 75mm under foot

I-Titan 80mm under foot

 

All in the same length, All have very close "radius" configurations. (yes I did this when we had a demo day) took out 170's in each ski.

 

You will be able to feel the difference from one ski to the next. Amount of pressure on the knees, edge hold, how fast you can ski them, etc.. Because the primary question is knee pain, I can tell you that a day on my Titans is a lot harder on my knees than a day on my Magnums. That's the "4mm" you are talking about.. That would be in similar snow conditions. I probably skied the Magnums harder than the Titans just because of how much quicker they are from edge to edge and how much better the edge hold is on firm snow and yet the Titans ARE harder on my knees.

 

Also consider that you are talking cumulative amounts of pounding. if you make 100 turns at speed you are pushing on that extra leverage 50 times on each side. Some of you can probably make 1000+ turns in a day. Think how much jumping 1000 times on the edge of your foot would would take it's toll.

 

Doesn't take much for most people to feel the difference as far as stress and pain. Again, consider we talk about .25 degrees of angle on an edge causing a problem. .02mm of railing to cause problems, microburrs (ones we can't even feel with our fingers) causing a ski to feel unskiable. 4MM is a lot of ski (half a ski in this context)

post #32 of 50

I agree the diagrams are a little simplistic but the idea is to easily show what's going on at a simple level. Yes there are a lot more things at play.

 

Considering that at_nyc already has compromised MCL's any extra pounding on them can be more easily aggravated.

 

Side cut and stiffer skis also contribute as many have pointed out. Same reason, Stiffer ski will be more torsion-ally stiff causing more transfer of these forces. More side cut will also be bigger levers, amplified by a torsion-ally stiffer ski will make amplify the problem also.

post #33 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by at_nyc View Post
 

Oh, I forgot the side cut part. 

 

The new ski has more side cut than the previous one. But I don't have all the dimension so can't do a quantitative comparison of what % of difference

 

New ski is longer but has rocker. So I think that offset the effect. (I hadn't gotten heavier, nor better. So I basically size my new skis to have similar effective length on non-powder surfaces)

 

I've been reading the other knee & wide ski thread links provided above. What's a bit harder to separate are the different type of pain/stress to the knee. 

 

I don't have pain IN the knee. But rather, a sensation of my MCLs occasionally being pulled just slightly beyond what they're comfortable to tolerate. And a sensation of them being irritated and inflamed

 

You guys had provided quite a lot of good information, and suggestions on things to try. I'll work on them next season (provided I don't get to go out one or two more times before closing of this season) 

 

skis are very hard to quantify... my point is that you can't really peg a ski just by A characteristic/spec, like waist, sidecut, jada, jada, jada.  Skis are constructs of so many different thing, some of which we haven't even mentioned.  Quite some years ago a really, really nice guy who loved skiing and was also an engineer (don;t remember his exact area of expertise) - John Perryman - did a huge project in applying a whole bunch of measurements and parameters, trying to quantify any particular ski's performance and characteristics. He called it the SKipp test, and successfully marketed it to SKI magazine back in the early 70's (for about 3 seasons). He was crazy thorough and was crazy about skiing. He also did empirical evaluations of the skis he 'quantified' in his tests, meaning he had actual skiers give their impressions on an extensive questionaire, after skiing.  Course he did all this in North NJ...  so the great variance in snow conditions just couldn;t be part of the considerations.  Anyway, he was always a great guy to talk with, for all the reasons we all bullshit about equipment here on epic.  And his SKipp tests were interesting and often considered a good indicator if a ski, and sometimes not...  That when ski dimensions were also so similar that mere few millimeters separated most. A google search will prolly bring up info on John and his SKipp test, if you/re interested.

 

Anyway, if you like your new Kenjas, and how they ski, then finding accommodation in how you ski them may be productive in addressing your concerns. Sometimes its how one approaches a long ski day. Sometimes an easy warmup period helps get into the day and keeps the brun from setting in as soon. Works for me. I always take 2 or 3+ warmup runs, concentrating on technique and a good muscle warmup. Each new season the warmup seems even more important.

 

So let's add another consideration not yet mentioned - tune.  Tune in the ski conversation is like the 'tire' thread in cycling forums  LOL!

Your Kenja are new and have the factory tune? What is the condition of tune of your older skis? Tuned regularly to some 'factory' or custom desired tune?

State of tune makes a huge difference in how a ski reacts/skis...

 

there just no payout to focusing on one thing.

post #34 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by moreoutdoor View Post
 

Your Kenja are new and have the factory tune? What is the condition of tune of your older skis? Tuned regularly to some 'factory' or custom desired tune?

 

there just no payout to focusing on one thing.

 

I don't have a custom tune. Both my old ski and the new one are regularly tuned (to whatever they came in with)

 

(I don't even do my own tune. I just drop them off at nearby shop when I felt they need a tune -- which is often since I'm rather good at finding hidden rocks )

 

I don't care much whether it's one thing or multiple things. I will deal with it/them one at a time though. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dchanView Post

 

Side cut and stiffer skis also contribute as many have pointed out. Same reason, Stiffer ski will be more torsion-ally stiff causing more transfer of these forces. More side cut will also be bigger levers, amplified by a torsion-ally stiffer ski will make amplify the problem also.

There's an inescapable truth in all the calculation:

 

- Being on a ski "better" for carving (side cut, tortion-ally stiff) means I'll end up carving more often than before! 

- Being on a stiffer skis that had better hold on hard pack will probably translate into staying on the slope longer on days that are firm! 

 

You're quite right, had I not had pulled my MCL in the past, I probably would have simply "tough it out". As it is, I'm looking at ways not to aggravate it further.

 

If I stay off the groomer when they're icy as I did with my previous ski, the knee stress with the new skis is mild enough I can probably ignore. The motivation to investigate for a "fix"(accommodation) is so that I can then get to enjoy the newly added dimension the new ski brings. 


Edited by at_nyc - 4/6/16 at 7:02pm
post #35 of 50

I started looking at this more carefully just for my own learning (L3 teach exam coming up)

 

Came across this article after I started reading my "Biomechanics of skiing" book.

 

http://skimoves.me/category/edge-control/

 

Because of copy writes I am not going to copy info from the page but it's a great read and really goes into the measurements and application of the physics of the wider skis.

 

at_nyc has stated her direction and that's good she has started on a path. Hopefully it will work out well for her. Strengthening the muscles around the knees to support the ligaments, along with fine tuning of technique to help understand what causes the knee pain are all good parts of the plan.

 

DC

 

(edit gender error)

post #36 of 50

my apologies @at_nyc

a kind person pointed out my gender error.

post #37 of 50
Thread Starter 

Not a problem. 

 

Your advice and analysis apply to bother gender just the same. That's all that matters. 


Edited by at_nyc - 4/6/16 at 9:37pm
post #38 of 50

Actually the gender does matter a little.

 

Are you average build, athletic build?

 

there is a thing we call "Q" angle that will also play into some of this.. skiing with a narrower stance (as some people are suggesting) would actually put more tension on your knees and strain MCL. You mentioned having cant work done on your boots (shim I'm guessing on the insides edges) If you  adjust these to get your tib/fib's more upright when in a wider stance, and ski with a more "athletic or functional stance" feet about where your hips are as compared to a narrower stance, you may find you are more comfortable in the knee area.

 

Canting on the inside edges allows for someone with wider hips to ski with a narrower stance and not stress the knees as much.

post #39 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchan View Post
 

...

 

Came across this article after I started reading my "Biomechanics of skiing" book.

 

http://skimoves.me/category/edge-control/

 

Because of copy writes I am not going to copy info from the page but it's a great read and really goes into the measurements and application of the physics of the wider skis.

 

...

 

thanks for this, gonna be some interesting reading. There's certainly some interesting stuff on foot-in-boot as applies to skiing mechanics, discussion on levers; and from some quick skimming, there's discussion on sidecut, lifts, and what seems some very interesting stuff on edging/sidecut/torques.  Most all of this comes from studies done on world cup racing - supported by the statement "In my last post, I said that I would offer an explanation for the historically consistent 67 mm (+ or -)  ski waist dimension of skis." and I don't quickly find any real reference to the varying effect of different waist widths - AKA 'application of the physics of the wider skis' .  But no matter, there's enough interesting stuff to keep me out of socialmedia trouble...

 

On another note - The EPICSKI / On the SNow site site is TOTALLY annoying and locks up my browsers constantly with all the calls to AD URLS that hang the page in the Kuiper Belt !!!  CHrome, Firefox, IE, Opera, Green Browser, Midori - they all go into lockdown after I'm on Epic for a little while, on 4 diffferent toptier machines.  Truely SO BAD that I can't really justify being so frustrated by this site! MODS, webguys, WHEN YOU GET THIS FIXED, feel free to drop me a note... until then, bye

post #40 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchan View Post

Or your pain will increase and you will stop skiing those skis.

Was I kidding? 87 for a powder/soft snow ski? No..

For my all around driver, I'm still on the Titan. 80 under foot..

If I were to go heli skiing or somewhere that I knew would be a 80% off piste deep pow day, I would rent some demos.

I might consider an 85-88 under foot, just to have a slightly wider ski but I'm very happy with the Titans and have not found I need anything else.

With respect, what's good for you or I may not be an appropriate or desirable ski for the OP. Fortunately, there are a number narrower skis that might work as well or better for the OP... Maybe a Nordica Nrgy 80, or Dynastar Powertrack 84, or Rossi Experience 84, or...

I'd also consider looking at the entire set up from the footbed up to see if there's anything going on with alignment issues or other activities the tight be affecting knee strength, RoM, flexibility, etc... Even poorly aligned or bike pedals with much float in off season training could affect one's knees for skiing. Bottom line is an 87mm ski isn't particularly wide by any current standard for recreational skis...even if you or I might prefer something narrower, and it may not (or might be) the cause of the OP's pain.
post #41 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post


With respect, what's good for you or I may not be an appropriate or desirable ski for the OP. Fortunately, there are a number narrower skis that might work as well or better for the OP... Maybe a Nordica Nrgy 80, or Dynastar Powertrack 84, or Rossi Experience 84, or...


I was not suggesting what she should try, I was referring to if I were to buy another ski where I might go. With the understanding that I would not buy a much wider ski, in the hopes of always being on soft or powder snow. Rather I would count on being on mostly firmer snow, (more common), travel with that ski if I could only carry one, and then rent / demo for the 5% of the times it makes sense.

 

Agreed that what I'm on is not always the best for someone else. That was why for the most part I was trying to refrain from giving any more specific suggestions other than go a little narrower for a daily travel driver. Then rent if you have an epic snow fall while on a trip.

 

DC

post #42 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by moreoutdoor View Post
 
On another note - The EPICSKI / On the SNow site site is TOTALLY annoying and locks up my browsers constantly with all the calls to AD URLS that hang the page in the Kuiper Belt !!!  CHrome, Firefox, IE, Opera, Green Browser, Midori - they all go into lockdown after I'm on Epic for a little while, on 4 diffferent toptier machines.  Truely SO BAD that I can't really justify being so frustrated by this site! MODS, webguys, WHEN YOU GET THIS FIXED, feel free to drop me a note... until then, bye

mod note: taking this discussion  to the bug report subforum. . This looks like a unique situation to us. 

post #43 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchan View Post
 

Actually the gender does matter a little.

 

Are you average build, athletic build?

 

there is a thing we call "Q" angle that will also play into some of this.. skiing with a narrower stance (as some people are suggesting) would actually put more tension on your knees and strain MCL. You mentioned having cant work done on your boots (shim I'm guessing on the insides edges) If you  adjust these to get your tib/fib's more upright when in a wider stance, and ski with a more "athletic or functional stance" feet about where your hips are as compared to a narrower stance, you may find you are more comfortable in the knee area.

 

Canting on the inside edges allows for someone with wider hips to ski with a narrower stance and not stress the knees as much.

I'm of fairly athletic build. 

 

I don't have a "typical" wide hip as average women (I never grew out of my teenager physique, can still wear junior jeans or even man's pants!)

 

That said, many "women" targeted modifications seem to work for me! (Yes, shim on the inside edge) Strange. 

 

On my previous skis (this case, plural since I have two pairs that I've been using for the past 5-6 years, 88mm & 68mm width respectively), I noticed no difference in MCL stress between those two. But importantly, the shim was essential. Without them, I experience MCL strain on BOTH the narrow and the wider skis. 

 

Naturally, the next question being, should the boot canting be looked at again with the new skis? Given the history?

post #44 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

 Fortunately, there are a number narrower skis that might work as well or better for the OP... Maybe a Nordica Nrgy 80, or Dynastar Powertrack 84, or Rossi Experience 84, or...
 

Ironically, that's where I started, but ended up on the 87mm Kenja after I was underwhelmed with the other mid-80 skis. 

 

Granted, I hadn't tried every single one of the 84/85 width skis. But I was coming from a 80mm skis that has no issue, So I'm a bit skeptical on limiting myself to only 84-85mm skis. I didn't expect the extra 7mm would be such a drastic change that the extra 4mm would not. 

post #45 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by at_nyc View Post
 

 

Naturally, the next question being, should the boot canting be looked at again with the new skis? Given the history?

YES.

 

If you get a chance, try going out and doing some one footed skiing, straight runs. skiing and static tests often produce different results.

 

Also try skiing with a slightly wider stance. It might be just a couple mm's to affect a "feel" change.

 

As pointed out many times there are a lot of things at play as far as your knee pain and all the other factors of the skis. binding delta, location of binding, etc.

 

It might help to know what boot you are in? What your old setup was (ski make/model/length binding make/model) and your new setup is (same info). the 15/16 Kenja is listed on volkl's website as 90mm but on evo.com it's listed as 87. Wondering which is correct.

post #46 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchan View Post
 

 the 15/16 Kenja is listed on volkl's website as 90mm but on evo.com it's listed as 87. Wondering which is correct.

It's the 14/15 model, which is 87

 

Previous skis was Dynastar Trouble Maker, which also changes from year to year. The one I had was 80mm. Binding is a Look PX11 (I think, the label had worn out). .

 

Don't have the new bindings in front of me (in the shop being tuned)

 

Old ski was 154cm, new ski is 162 but with tip rocker. 

 

Don't have the side cut information of the old skis any more, only they were relatively straight compare to the new skis. That's one ski that has the least side cut compare to just about any skis I've stepped in recently. 

 

The trial and error experiment process is going to be a slow one. Because the pain isn't always there, nor does it come on right away. It usually take a good part of the day before I get any "feed back" from the knee. It's only on my recent trip on coral reef for 2 mornings that I started to pay attention to this issue.  

post #47 of 50

This season, I developed knee pain on the outside of one knee, it did not go away, so, I did a visit to an Orthopic specialist. X-rays reveal that I am in the beginning stages of osteoarthritis in that joint. Don't know if you have had your knees evaluated recently, but, it is very possible that you may have a similar condition. My treatments involved a shot of cortisone and follow up with knee lubricant shots. I will say that during the past couple of years, skiing on hard eastern snow resulted in mild pain in my knees, and, they have the beginnings of patella femoral syndrome. . I know in the past, a pair of 88 waist skis caused knee pain in eastern skiing, so, my present widest eastern ski is a 78. Personally, I'll always ski narrow skis unless I am in soft snow conditions. I say if a certain set of skis causes you pain, get another.

 

My Ortho specialist is very much an advocate of leg and hip muscle strengthening, without performing bent knee squat type exercises. He states that hip muscle strengthening is most important. It was very frustrating trying to build ski legs while in pain. So, my plan for next year to be very dedicated to building thigh and hip strength well in advance of ski season.

post #48 of 50
... along with range of motion and explosiveness.
post #49 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by rod9301 View Post

You you will probably get used to the new skis and your pain will go away.


I have a similar issue with my left knee, which I injured many years ago, as at times I get that pain on the inside area by the knee cap.  That said, I have never attributed that to the width of the skis.  My dd is 88 underfoot, my next pair is 100, then 108 & 117.  Rather I chalk that pain up to an old injury, being older, less in shape and trying to ski hard for hours and hours.  Pop a few Motrin and call me in the morning;)

post #50 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by at_nyc View Post
 It's only on my recent trip on coral reef for 2 mornings that I started to pay attention to this issue.  

This on any ski would make an old injury like that flare up.

 

Wider skis will just amplify the affect.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion